The US National Library of Medicine regularly collects summary data on direct use of Unified Medical Language System (UMLS) resources. The summary data sources include UMLS user registration data, required annual reports submitted by registered users, and statistics on downloads and application programming interface calls. In 2019, the National Library of Medicine analyzed the summary data on 2018 UMLS use. The library also conducted a scoping review of the literature to provide additional intelligence about the research uses of UMLS as input to a planned 2020 review of UMLS production methods and priorities. 5043 direct users of UMLS data and tools downloaded 4402 copies of the UMLS resources and issued 66 130 951 UMLS application programming interface requests in 2018. The annual reports and the scoping review results agree that the primary UMLS uses are to process and interpret text and facilitate mapping or linking between terminologies. These uses align with the original stated purpose of the UMLS.

No abstract

No abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to profile various types of Web-based tools to facilitate research collaboration within and across institutions. Design/methodology/approach Various Web-based tools were tested by the author. Additionally, tutorial videos and guides were reviewed. Findings There are various free and low-cost tools available to assist in the collaborative research process, and librarians are well-positioned to facilitate their usage. Practical implications Librarians and researchers will learn about various types of tools available at free or at low cost to fulfill needs of the collaborative research process. Social implications As the tools highlighted are either free or of low cost, they are also valuable to start-ups and can be recommended for entrepreneurs. Originality/value As the realm of Web-based collaborative tools continues to evolve, the options must be continually revisited and reviewed for currency.

Objectives: Information professionals have supported medical providers, administrators and decision-makers, and guideline creators in the COVID-19 response. Searching COVID-19 literature presented new challenges, including the volume and heterogeneity of literature and the proliferation of new information sources, and exposed existing issues in metadata and publishing. An expert panel developed best practices, including recommendations, elaborations, and examples, for searching during public health emergencies. Methods: Project directors and advisors developed core elements from experience and literature. Experts, identified by affiliation with evidence synthesis groups, COVID-19 search experience, and nomination, responded to an online survey to reach consensus on core elements. Expert participants provided written responses to guiding questions. A synthesis of responses provided the foundation for focus group discussions. A writing group then drafted the best practices into a statement. Experts reviewed the statement prior to dissemination. Results: Twelve information professionals contributed to best practice recommendations on six elements: core resources, search strategies, publication types, transparency and reproducibility, collaboration, and conducting research. Underlying principles across recommendations include timeliness, openness, balance, preparedness, and responsiveness.  Conclusions: The authors and experts anticipate the recommendations for searching for evidence during public health emergencies will help information specialists, librarians, evidence synthesis groups, researchers, and decision-makers respond to future public health emergencies, including but not limited to disease outbreaks. The recommendations complement existing guidance by addressing concerns specific to emergency response. The statement is intended as a living document. Future revisions should solicit input from a broader community and reflect conclusions of meta-research on COVID-19 and health emergencies.

Purpose This paper aims to describe how public librarians can better address complex information needs. First, librarians should classify the degree of complexity of the need by using Warner’s classification model; then they can use Popper’s three world theory to anticipate and respond to complex information needs by following specific steps. Design/methodology/approach After examining the information science literature, appropriate models were selected to support public librarians. Our information science scholarship, coupled with our practical experience, informed our search and selection. Findings This paper details specific steps that public librarians can take to anticipate and respond to individual information needs. Doing so is imperative as the information needs of the public continue to become increasingly complex. Originality/value This paper improves information practice because it offers specific steps to aid public librarians to anticipate and respond to complex information needs. It draws upon an existing model and theoretical framework. This paper also highlights selected examples of how public librarians across the USA have anticipated information needs, and developed partnerships with organizations external to the public library to address complex information needs.

No abstract

No abstract